Facts versus the lie of "liberal, out-of-touch Hollywood"
The whole thing was prompted by a comment by John "Dirty Harry" Nolte, whose site offers this epithet to describe himself: "[a] right-wing, Tim Robbins-loathing blogger."Nolte posted, "Between narratives and documentaries I’ve counted 16 anti-Iraq war films over the last two years. All have flopped, miserably. More are on the way." As Rogers demonstrates, this is just not true, as a purely factual matter.
Well, first off, for a trillion dollar industry dedicated to pushing anti-War movies on America, dedicating to this cause less than 5% of the last 300 movies kind of indicates our hearts aren't really into it. Not to mention the limited number of release theaters for most of the movies we discussed. FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here's a quick clue -- when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this?Big Hollywood and Why I Admire David ZuckerYou'll note thay evil "Hollywood" kind of lay down on the oppression job, allowing An American Carol to be released in 1600+ theaters, and Proud American to be released in 750 theaters, and Expelled to be released in over 1000 theaters, the widest release of a documentary in history. As far as soul-crushing propaganda machines go, we are not getting the memos out, apparently.
the latest
latest episodes
I wouldn't believe the numbers anyway, what with Hollywood Accounting
Its funny to me but what is classed as main stream political views in the states comes across as right wing nut jobs in from a European perspective.
Sarah Palin is a case in point.
Yeah, if Hollywood markets the right movies here we europeans do attend.
I'm going to finally say it, cause it needs to be said, but when did conservatives use facts to make a point?
"Liberal" Hollywood died with the birth of the Hays Code.
For many decades, ALL Hollywood scripts had to be approved IN ADVANCE of production by a Board of uptight social conservatives.
They miss their control, it seems.
Even funnier, they had a "witchhunt" against "left-wing influence" while that Board was still in full operation and control of what was produced.
It seems to me some people miss the extremely distorted political views presented to and indeed forced on Americans by the overtly right-wing production control Boards, over the decades prior to the widespread abandonment of the Production Codes in 1967.
Co-incidentally. just in time for Hollywood to compete with reefer and LSD for the attention of young people, by using previously-banned images of sex and mostly violence to keep their audiences excited...
Or are these grousing right-wingers really just ranting about 'juvenile delinquency' and rock'n'roll movies?
Who can forget all those anti-Vietnam war movies made prior to 1975....oh right there weren't any.
How about all those pro-marijuana/psychedelic drug movies made prior to 1978? Oh right there weren't any...but one, and it made a lot of money...Easy Rider..and it is tough to say it is "pro-drug", rather it just 'presented' drug use without editorializing. And that wasn't made by Hollywood, really...
I would agree that 'Hollywood" (which is now what? 2000 employees and a few phone banks...) has been liberal in its presentation of scenes of extreme violence (why?). But I do not think that is what the right is grousing about, here...
I note that the present movie ratings system still serves to effectively limit the presentation of sexual themes, but it lets the brown blood flow free and thick.
How is starting wars 'conservative', anyway?
@5
I've always wondered why violence gets a free pass in movies, but sex is zeroed in on. If you want to talk about pro-war versus anti-war movies, I can't say much, but I know this, Hollywood is definitely pro-violence.
yeah, it is as if the amount and degree of violence depicted on the screen mirrors the growth of the US military budget...Rambo for Reagan, Saw for Bush II....
The $108 million appears to be box office gross, not money actually received by the studio, so it is not strong evidence of profitablity:
Box Office Guru link
Agent 86's point in comment 1 respective of Hollywood accounting is a good caveat for all this.
Brent Buckner, posting as anonymous
Note that only a percentage of the box office goes to cover production cost. On a good day, it might be 80%.
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?indexID=46
"John "Dirty Harry" Nolte, whose site offers this epithet to describe himself: "[a] right-wing, Tim Robbins-loathing blogger.""
It's kind of sad when you have to define yourself to the world by the hatred of a single person.
The right wingnut noise machine operates best in an echo chamber. The last thing they want is facts. If you could organize a herd of facts into a stampede, you would find bloggers like Nolte running away as fast as their little legs could carry them. Facts like these are useful for independent skeptics of the Rage-publicans.
And of course the fine entertainment 'Dirty Harry' can be seen as being overtly fascist, in its approval of police officers ignoring their civilian superiors and becoming 'vigilante' in their tactics. I especially like the "Dedicated to all the fine SFPD Officers who have given their lives in the line of duty" placard/marketing gimmick that scrolls by at the end of the film. (Although Magnum force, another fine entertainment, makes amends somewhat, by having Harry go after actual uniformed vigilante cops.)
It seems that some just do not approve of messages they disagree with appearing in their entertainment.
I think propaganda can be made by non-governmental entities, and thereby avoid the Laws against it. I understand that the Pentagon reviews scripts to determine if they will 'assist' in the production...
Bex, Sara Palin ain't part of my mainstream!!
But yes, I see your point. Sadly.
Nice spin, but by Hollywood standards, it was a FLOP. It's more than just the filmmaking budget vs. how much it made. You have to toss in marketing (which conventional wisdom in Hollywood translates to 2x the budget). As such, it actually LOST money - like many movies did.
Ask Art Buchwald about Hollywood accounting.
Recent war movies have failed at the box office for a very simple reason: nobody wants to see them. What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is not history and it's not fiction. It's happening right now and it's affecting everyone. It reminds people of what's going on this world and the majority of move-goers see a film because they want to FORGET what's going on "out there".
It seems that John Rogers is using gross box office, not the money that the studio actually receives:
Box Office Guru link
Agent 86's caveat respective of Hollywood Accounting applies, but what Rogers has presented is insufficient to demonstrate profitability for _Body of Lies_.
Moderator:
Being as I've bothered to register, please don't post my previous anonymous comment - apparently, I cared enough about making this chip shot to speed the process....
The reason that any war films (whether pro-war or anti-war) don't succeed at the B.O massively is because the audience does NOT want to sit through a war movie, period.
they would rather watch a happy, entertaining film that'll make them feel good.
ever since 9-11, we've been having a huge barrage of horribly acted movies, remakes, sequels, and adaptations, all escapist movies, that the audience are eager to flock to so they can get troubles off their minds.
It has nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative."
just my $0.2
Good article. He does a rather detailed description of one view of how Hollywood works. Of course, one can nitpick the data to nudge it either way. I don't think it can be nudged far enough to quibble with the basic premise that Suits in Hollywood are trying to make $$$, regardless of politics and that Some people in Hollywood spend their capital on politically overt pet projects at either end of the political spectrum.
bex, Sarah Palin is definitely not mainstream. Many (most) on the left and right and center find her to be an unqualified blowhard. Hence the loss at the polls, which seems so many years ago at this point!
I agree with my fellow ugly person: Movies are entertainment. The most 'realistic' movie is yet a fantasy of light and shadow and sound.
War movies appeal to film-makers because the crucible of war allows for greater displays of extreme motion, which in turn makes the entertainment more compelling, giving the drama/story its high points. Melodrama, and the re-presentation of extreme or overblown emotion, is the soul of the box-office, always has been...the film-makers want the audience to be emotionally involved (so don't look too closely for rationality in these entertainments). Film i an exercise in the manipulation of an audiences' emotions - as Hitchcock well knew.
The "war movie" circa 1950-1970 was all about reliving and re-presenting the experiences of the generation that had fought WWII and Korea. Catharsis?
Contrast 1965-1982, with the bad taste of Vietnam in people's mouths.
In general though war movies become historical artifacts quickly. And war movies made while the war is still on cannot help but be propaganda, of the non-governmental sort... IMO the best war movies relentlessly focus on the people involved in the story, not on over-arching geo-political matters...and are always written by those who fought in the conflict re-presented.
All that being said I find it striking that many first-hand reports of a person's first experience of actual combat state the participants' feeling that "it was just like being in a movie..."
@#6- Easy-- because some people consider violence to be less disturbing than sex.
Reasons for this might vary, but one possibility is that they consider watching violence and sex to both encourage the viewer to perform such activities in inappropriate manners, but that the inhibitions against doing violence are so much higher than those against "illicit" sex that there's less risk of social disruption from it.
@#4 Around Barry Goldwater's era, really.
As much as I like John Rogers (his Blue Beetle was one of the best comics in recent years) I'm afraid his analysis is a bit off since even at 108 million that doesn't take into account advertising which is typically nearly as much as the budget to make the film itself.
Still the original theory of "these films failed = hollywood is out of touch with real americans" is completely unfounded. You would think that if, as I'm sure this guy thinks, the world hates the USA then these films would be huge successes internationally or at least in countries that have been the most vocal in their opposition to the war. You would also think that films like World Trade Center and United 93 would be huge box office smashes which they weren't.
The catch is that box office is not a direct representation of a studio's take for a film. At all. Typically the studio will get about half of the box office receipts, with the exhibitors keeping the other half. The argument (on both sides) is deeply flawed, methodology-wise.
Cicada: perhaps the movies have conditioned them to be so over the past century?
More like the censors would have it so, and certainly the "kill-all-the-sinners" crowd...People squirm at the sight of arabic t-shirts on airplanes - what in their experience would lead them to such a stupid reaction?
@#16
Ah. Back when I used to look up to conservatives those were the people I think I was looking at. Too bad they all pretty much died or were kicked out of the movement before my time.
Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice. Goldwater was lying.
Heh...c'mon, the REAL reason Cory liked this piece is that Rogers says that "Hollywood runs on whuffie."
Also, Brent Buckner & Jesse Thorn, Rogers is certainly aware that gross worldwide box office is not the best measure of a film's performance; he uses that figure in response to Nolte's claim that Vantage Point was the "only pro-American" war film to turn a profit. Nolte cited that film's worldwide box office, so Rogers uses the same figure, even as he acknowledges the problems with that figure.
ZIPPYSPINCYCLE, re comment #22:
I didn't comment on Rogers' post, I commented on Cory's post, wherein Cory wrote:
'..."All have flopped, miserably. More are on the way." As Rogers demonstrates, this is just not true, as a purely factual matter.'
By selecting from Rogers' post, Cory's post contends that "as a purely factual matter", _Body of Lies_ was profitable. As I wrote: "what Rogers has presented is insufficient to demonstrate profitability for _Body of Lies_."
Zippyspincycle: You and I seem to be the only two who caught that. I enjoy your cynicism. ;)
Bex @ #2: A lot of people like me who grew up before Nixon also see the current US political scene as being ultra-rightwing. "Hey you wingnut wackos, get off my lawn!"
You might want to revise this post as KungFuMonkey has significantly revised his original post. He is back-tracking as fast as his dainty little feet will carry him, 'But I was, to be blunt, a raving asshole while I made that point.' along with 'The major teaching point is: do not post at 1 am.'
You can dance around this until you turn blue, but Nolte's basic point reamins standing: Hollywood has pushed anti-war movies at America in that past few year, and America has responded with "stick with what you can do well- puppies and comic books'
The post Cory quotes here seems to have been taken down and replaced by another, much less detailed one. A pity. I didn't get a chance to read the original.
@6: "This Film is Not Yet Rated" is an entertaining doc on this topic.
Media is about making money.
If the media is liberal, then that is because that is what makes money and, to an extent, a reflection of what most people want. If this supposedly democratic nation is mostly liberal then the nation and and its media should be liberal. Conservatives are really complaining about democracy because as the minority they hate it.
-just trying to channel a little Stephen Colbert style logic there. But seriously, when someone starts screaming liberal media it pretty much an admission that they have no facts and no point and just want to bitch about some peceived injustice to their sensibilities.
"He is back-tracking as fast as his dainty little feet will carry him"
That's because he's gay right motionview? To you anyone who is against the manly art of slaughter is teh fag, right?
I read through The Whole Damn Thing when it was up, and outside of the snark, KFM is right. The "liberal" anti war movies comprise a teeny subset of movies, and most of them aren't bad investments for production companies to take a chance on.
"Hollywood" has not pushed anti war movies, notable actors and directors in Hollywood have pushed a few, and conservatives have had full on Linda Blair had spinning pea soup vomiting hysterics over them. And a reasonable percentage of them made money. Those that failed can be justified by studios as getting a good personal relationship with the stars, which is worth millions in its self.
Much of what was taken down included real analysis. Unless he's making numbers up, there was data to back up his assertions - "Anti war" movies were about 2% of overall output, more than half of them made a profit, and conservative movies like the Ben Stein cretionist one got distribution too. So "liberal Hollywood" is a myth.
Motionview, even if one were to concede Nolte's claim that he counted 16 anti-war films, including documentaries, in the last two years, that hardly constitutes a flood of Hollywood propaganda. Rogers retains this essential point:
Hollywood was an integral part of the war effort of 1942-46. It was understood to be so. No anti-war movie could possibly have been made. Censorship was firmly in place. If the Axis had won, the brothers Warner, among others, would have been tried as war criminals.
Anti-war movies, as such, are made after the wars they depict. During the Korean War, "Attack!", an excellent movie about WWII infantry combat was perceived by D.C. as being anti-war and subsequently banned from movie theaters on military bases (it wasn't anti-war, it was anti-officer class). As noted earlier, there were no anti-war movies made about Korea or Vietnam during those wars. Iraq is a different story.
It is a measure of that wretched misadventure that anti-Iraq war movies are being made. This time they caught on early enough. The war criminals now deserving to be prosecuted are the gangsters around (and including) der Bush who dreamed it up, launched it, and mismanaged it.
The USA may never live it down ... or survive it. History will blame the rest of us for not storming the White House, dragging them into the streets, and hanging them.
Something else that isn't taken into account for any of these arguments are the lucrative ancillary markets that really make producers money. Even a film that flops at the boxoffice can turn a profit when released on DVD. Mike Meyer's first "Austin Powers" movie barely broke even in its theatrical release, but gained cult status when it came out on VHS and DVD. The two sequels were theatrical hits because of the built-in audience that first discovered the character on their home television screens.
Same story was repeated with "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle," a stoner movie that bombed in theaters ($23 million worldwide gross), but turned into a cult favorite because it was much more fun to get high with your friends and watch it at home with cheaper munchies to snack on. The sequel from last summer, "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" made more money in its domestic release ($38 million) than the original made during its entire theatrical run worldwide.
Worldwide boxoffice totals (not just U.S. domestic gross) + DVD rentals/sales + HBO/ShowTime/CineMax/On-Demand/PayPerView sales = *profit*
Regarding the number of film, I would like to see a list because if the list just comes from imdb there is a ton of stuff on there that never makes it to the cineplex.
Moreover, to include documentaries in the list as evidence that "Hollywood hates America!!!" is more than a little disingenuous since Hollywood studios rarely bankroll documentaries.
Oh, and Ben Shapiro!?? The original chickenhawk who advocates the genocide of Arabs? Who is totally, absolutely "Not Gay"â„¢?
If it wasn't for trust fund babies there wouldn't be any wingnut pundits.
@Bex: Sarah Palin is far to the right of our admittedly right-wing "mainstream." Many people in her own party thought she was a poor choice for VP. Her fifteen minutes of fame were owing to her being slightly photogenic and more than a little controversial for her ignorant views.
Actually I take it back. I looked up to these people because I didn't know better, now I know them all too well.
Actually, someone mentioned it, this doesn't tackle documentaries, which aren't explicitly anti-war, but put the realities of the war into an ugly light. Someone should do a good look at those, and see how well they do across the board, not just in theaters, but on Netflix, rentals, and dvd purchases.
Surely this couldn't be related to the fact that we just lived through the Iraq War?
This is one of the first wars, if not the first war, that has had multiple movies about the subject come out while it is still ongoing, isn't it?
I'm about as anti-war as you can get, but why would I go to a movie about how much the Iraq War sucks? I've lived through the coverage, I know it sucks. I know it was bullshit and I know it will always be bullshit.
It's not like seeing the South Park Movie with the series still running.
"We're using worldwide box office? Okay, not my idea, but okay. In that case, Body of Lies made $108 million against $70 million production, plainly in the black, even before after-market sales."
Actually no - the 'box office nut' is the fee the theatres take for showing the film - around 35-50% in the US but up to 75% in the UK.
So if a film takes $100m at the box office, it actually has made the distributor $30m - $60m. Once print and advertising costs and the distributor fee are taken off it could be next to nothing. Even without creative 'Hollywood accounting' it may only mean $25m or so to the producer.
Common mistake, but unfortunately means Body of Lies is most probably not in profit, at least not on box office.
Pfft. . . "facts" are just another liberal ploy to destroy America.
All politics is local.
All great art has something of the universal about it.
Is this thread about film as art or film as propaganda? Is this an argument about what flavor our propaganda ought to be?
artsy propaganda.
His argument is basically that Hollywood makes these movies because liberal movie stars push them and liberal movie critics and Academy voters like them, which translates into increased profits down the road for the studios that make them. I don't know how far this goes in proving that Hollywood isn't liberal; it lets the studio execs off the hook I guess. He also acknowledges that Hollywood's liberal atmosphere makes it harder to make conservative movies on the rare occasion that somebody wants to ("Hell, do you think that was easy? To make that movie in Hollywood?").
My guess is that it it not easy to make any movie in Hollywood, that's why there's only 300 or so made a year.
As to "liberal" vs. "conservative" movies, I do not think the terms "liberal" or 'conservative" work in this context.
If you speak of films as MADE by liberals, or conservatives, maybe.
But to apply those terms to the final product?
Without consciously descending to the level of propaganda, how could any artist create such?
Is there an analogue here to any other art forms?
EG what would be a "liberal" painting, what would be a "conservative" painting, be, where the Artist herself had not set out explicitly to create such (that is, in those cases where propaganda was not any part of the aim of the artist)?
I think that the characterization of any work of art, which has not explicitly and consciously set out to propagandize a political viewpoint, says more about the characterizer , than about the Artwork under discussion.
The characterization itself (ie dividing filmed or any other artworks into 'conservative' and "liberal" groupings) reveals the limits of that commentators' own aesthetic sensibilities, nothing more: in other words, the "characterizer" by this means drags the Art down to his level...I'm reminded of discussions of "degenerate" art, in Nazi Germany.
Yuck.